GUILTY MI - Renisha McBride, 19, shot while trying to get help, Detroit, Nov 2013

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
WAFER IS TAKING THE STAND

sorry but i think that deserves all caps :p

wow i cant believe it, he is on the stand right now.

Yeah, that's a gamble from a defense perspective. I'm very surprised.
 
yeah i think it is great as i mentioned before, but it will be interesting to hear whether it was against advice of counsel etc
 
cross examination just started, everything went just about as we have heard it before now;

he described trigger pull as purely reflex action, said screen was dislodged when he opened door, he was frightened, tried twice to find phone, was not going to cower in his house and wait for them to break in.
 
they are playing his interrogation video, he makes many comments about being mad, "full of piss and vinegar", im sure many jurors took note of that and will consider it when determining if he acted in self-defense and really feared someone was trying to get in, or if he was just acting out of anger. once again, especially now since he did actually take the stand - it all comes down to whether or not the jury finds him believable.

im not making any predictions on this one.
 
weird, in his police interview they asked him if he used prostitutes and when he said no they asked "you are attracted to women tho?"
 
weird, in his police interview they asked him if he used prostitutes and when he said no they asked "you are attracted to women tho?"

I don't even want to hazard a guess as to what this might allude. Let's just chalk it up to "odd" I guess?
 
weird, in his police interview they asked him if he used prostitutes and when he said no they asked "you are attracted to women tho?"

Can someone enlighten me as to what relevance that type of thing would have on the case?
 
I have very strong opinions on this case but for the life of me cannot figure out how such a question would be relevant to the events of that night???

Whether he killed her on accident, in self defense or by homicide, questioning him about use of prostitutes and whether he was into females sexually is so far out there I don't even know how to process that one??
 
Can someone enlighten me as to what relevance that type of thing would have on the case?


He is a single man, if he had women coming over for money or drugs in exchange for sex that might explain a few things.

Just a guess but I could see them wanting to know about his lifestyle and who he may have associated with.
 
Earlier in the trial one of the investigators explained that they were thinking he called her and she could have possibly been a prostitute. She was not identified yet. That was one possibility the officers were trying to eliminate and they also checked his cell phone to see if he called her.
 
thank you, that makes sense I guess.

So older white guy kills young unidentified black girl who was apparently trying to gain entry into his home in the wee hours. And investigators leapt to unhappy prostitute customer transaction. Nice. :censored: Time for me to step out for a bit.
 
Does anyone have links to his testimony? and/or the interview? I am trying to find them.
 
Found it on youtube, Wafer testifies:

[video=youtube;-jw0Gpnptec]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jw0Gpnptec[/video]
 
Wow...I would say the defense/defendant made a GOOD decision to have him take the stand. That was powerful.

Sorry that video does not show his WHOLE testimony but at least it is something, if anyone finds better links please post.
 
Can someone enlighten me as to what relevance that type of thing would have on the case?

I think Sonya had a good suggestion regarding his lifestyle. It could be, they have info about his personal life, such as using the services of prostitutes, and they did at one time think Renisha might have been involved in that.

Or, it could be an attempt to open the door to character evidence. In criminal cases, there are times where certain facets of a person's character cannot be brought up before the jury, as it is prejudicial. However, if the defendant opens the door to the issue, or lies about it, then it can be brought up. My first thought regarding the question was that it was a step towards bringing up some negative character evidence, or trying to trip him up or rattle him on the stand. Different attorneys have different styles of questioning - some logically walk the person through, where everyone can see where it's going, whereas others have a more scattershot approach.
 
This video shows the beginning of his testimony (10 minutes that aren't shown in the youtube version):

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/way...heodore-wafter-takes-stand-in-his-own-defense

Also I found a couple of other interesting notes in articles while looking for this. He apparently shot her with Buckshot, also he had found empty liquor bottles, syringes, etc...on his property at various times.

Seems to me he was very disorganized, first he goes in the kitchen and holds a baseball bat, then after a while he goes to the bedroom to get the shotgun he had bought 8 years earlier etc... I bet he really didn't know if it was loaded because he had let it sit there for years, he didn't even grab it first when the trouble started.
 
Hi, Ocean -- Hope you are doing well!! :blowkiss:

I mostly agree with your post, though I have a few questions/comments in no particular order.

First, I haven't read the specific statutes on the different levels of manslaughter/homicide in MI -- does anyone have a link handy? I'm most familiar with FL laws and I can't see how Renisha's death would fit into our current statutes. Though, juries tend to do weird things in my state. :)

That 92% statistic you gave is the first time I ever heard this -- can you give a link?

IMO, I don't know whether or not Wafer had malice and I'm leaning towards not. The big red flag for me is that he opened his front door, because if he was so in fear for his life, why would he open the door?? Even if he was just brandishing his gun as a threat and Renisha was shot accidentally through a user-error in using his new gun, he needs to be punished and, IMO, harshly. Owning a gun is a huge responsibility that far too many gun-owners don't seem to understand.

MOO, IMO and all that.

Good Morning Ms. Daisy! I cant answer why Wafer or others have opened their door to a perceived threat. All I know he isn't the only one that has ever done it before and legally he broke no law by opening the door of his own home.

What I found interesting about the self defense laws in MI is that it now includes porch areas. Some seem to think that the homeowner must be attacked before they can defend themselves when in truth the purpose of self defense laws is to prevent an attack from happening in the first place. Laws such as this go by what the self defending person perceived at the time all of it was happening. Mens Rea, I think its called or something similar.

The MI Supreme Court changed the law in 2011 to include all porch areas which are now considered a part of the home. The homeowner has no duty to retreat. There was a time before the laws changed that it was always said if someone has to shoot someone they think is breaking into their home they need to make sure if they shoot them outside of the home to pull the body over the threshold and make sure they are inside the living area of the home. That no longer is the law or requirement.

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Curtilage-2.png Here is the law as it is now after being changed in 2011.

I quickly looked for a link since I have known this for decades and had no reason to read it again but some of this information came from a DOJ study Bill Clinton had done while he was in office and researchers have continued to update. In fact I do think I remember reading something a few years back that the 8% who fire their weapon has actually dropped even lower. I will try to look for current info when I have time. I am very busy with my RL today so it may be late this evening before I can research it again.:)

Gun Control Fact-Sheet 2004

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.(3)


* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.(22)

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.(23)

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)(25). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."(26)


http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?176432-Gun-Control-Fact-Sheet
 
I think Sonya had a good suggestion regarding his lifestyle. It could be, they have info about his personal life, such as using the services of prostitutes, and they did at one time think Renisha might have been involved in that.

Or, it could be an attempt to open the door to character evidence. In criminal cases, there are times where certain facets of a person's character cannot be brought up before the jury, as it is prejudicial. However, if the defendant opens the door to the issue, or lies about it, then it can be brought up. My first thought regarding the question was that it was a step towards bringing up some negative character evidence, or trying to trip him up or rattle him on the stand. Different attorneys have different styles of questioning - some logically walk the person through, where everyone can see where it's going, whereas others have a more scattershot approach.

those questions were asked during the police interrogation, they were not brought up in court. (well not yet, he is back on the stand right now).
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
1,901
Total visitors
2,045

Forum statistics

Threads
600,452
Messages
18,109,001
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top